Mismatch of Crosssection

Also it is not matching for uc~ > H+ W- H0 for a particular parameter set and at cm energy = 14 TeV.

Could you quote your numbers for MG anc CH,please,
so we could take a closer look.
Also, please send us (<email address hidden>)

1. session.dat from CalcHEP
so we know all parameters you have used.
2. analogous file from Madgraph

Thank you,
  Alexander

Hi Alexander,

For m_H+ = 1000, m_A =991.01 , m_h = 126 , m_H0 = 65,
  the cross section of uc~ > H+ W- H0 at cm energy = 14 TeV is 23.55 fb. (From Madgraph) where as in Calchep the cross section is coming 1.769*10^-3 fb.

Also, I have sent you the relevant files to your mail.

Regards,
Shiba

Hi Siba,
thanks for sending me the model details and all other details I have requested.

1. I confirm you numbers for the CalcHEP ~ 1.769*10^-3 fb
    Please note, that the number you have got is:

   a) evaluated in the t'Hoof feynman gauge
   b) evaluated for PDF switched off

2. You you switch on the PDF, say choose CTEQ6l, then you will get even lower number from the CalcHEP ~ 1.8*10^-4 fb

3. The main point is that -- if you chose Unitary gauge from the CalcHEP's menu (this choice youneed to make at the very beginning)
    then after the proper evaluation you will get ~ 16 fb for the same PDF choice

What does this mean? This means that the model implementation itself has the problem -- it is eventually not gauge invariant -- which is bad. So yo need to contact authors -- e.g. Adgreas Goudelis and let them know

Meanwhile if you study phenomenology of inert two Higgs doublet model,
you can use our implementation at HEPMDB
http://hepmdb.soton.ac.uk/hepmdb:0715.0187
which has been cross-checked between two gauges and publicly available.

The model was generated for diagonal CKM=1 diagonal case, but if you need we can provide you
for the full CKM case (which I personally think is not necessary since CKM=1 lead to the essentially identical results, after you sum over all flavours and it works much faster)

Regards,
      Alexander

 thanks Alexander for your help and detailed clarifications. Actually, I am not getting why uc~ > H+ W- H0 is not possible in the model you are providing ? Is it due to gauge invariance ?

Regards,
Shiba

According to the model you are providing, the process name is u C -> ~h+ , W-, ~h1.

I have told you in my previous message that it is for r diagonal CKM=1
which means that

u C is absent because it is CKM non-diagonal suppressed

and it is "replaced"
by parts of

uU -> ~h+ , W-, ~h1
and
 cC -> ~h+ , W-, ~h1

which are CKM non-suppressed

Dear Shibasipu,
do you need further help?
Regards,
Alex

thanks Alexander for your help. Still it is not clear to me why for certain processes the cross section is matching in both the Calchep and Madgraph with the model file I had previously used. I am not sure if there is something wrong with the model file . Because Many authors have already used the model file previously. I have already written to the authors of the model file.

Regards,
Shiba